Jerry Brown closing 70 state parks in Ca.

[syrenn]

Just curious - where does it say in the constitution that it is the state's role to provide security in parks?
Isn't that the bottom line for so many of the posters on this forum?

Which in itself is hilarious. Rightwingers are always braying about the size of government and then when something breaks because government is shrunk they are the first to complain. There was a great example of that during the snowstorm in NYC. Right wing papers came down hard on the speed of snow removal. Why so slow? Man power at the Department of Santitation was down to historic lows. That's why. Not enough people.

There hasn't been any new major environmental regulations introduced since the Clinton era..and in fact Bush made it a point to look the other way regarding regulations. Taxes were cut to historic lows. And still..jobs were shipped out.

At what point do people simply say..

"It's because the rich are fucking greedy".

How about if you want to use the park... pay the admission? There was quite the howl about raising the admission to the users of the parks.

 

[idb]

Just curious - where does it say in the constitution that it is the state's role to provide security in parks?
Isn't that the bottom line for so many of the posters on this forum?

The problem is that this is CA and the home of the deep pocket law suit.

If a park does not have security or maintenance.... you can bet your life someone is going to fall on a leaf for lack of "maintenance" and the state will be sued for millions. Or someone will camp on top of a bear den and get mauled and sue for lack of "security"

So...better to close them, or sell them?

 

[Sallow]

Just curious - where does it say in the constitution that it is the state's role to provide security in parks?
Isn't that the bottom line for so many of the posters on this forum?

Which in itself is hilarious. Rightwingers are always braying about the size of government and then when something breaks because government is shrunk they are the first to complain. There was a great example of that during the snowstorm in NYC. Right wing papers came down hard on the speed of snow removal. Why so slow? Man power at the Department of Santitation was down to historic lows. That's why. Not enough people.

There hasn't been any new major environmental regulations introduced since the Clinton era..and in fact Bush made it a point to look the other way regarding regulations. Taxes were cut to historic lows. And still..jobs were shipped out.

At what point do people simply say..

"It's because the rich are fucking greedy".

How about if you want to use the park... pay the admission? There was quite the howl about raising the admission to the users of the parks.

I have nothing against that..by the way. In NYC where I live, I think the Subways are to cheap. But there is a good argument against raising fares too..because salaries have essentially been flat for the middle class for several decades now..while the price of just about everything has been creeping up..albeit slowly. But somehow, executive compensation has climbed 300% or so..

Now why is that?

The average joe..who actually does the work gets bupkiss and the high flutin executive, who generally just takes the credit..gets all the do-ray-me?

 

[syrenn]

Just curious - where does it say in the constitution that it is the state's role to provide security in parks?
Isn't that the bottom line for so many of the posters on this forum?

The problem is that this is CA and the home of the deep pocket law suit.

If a park does not have security or maintenance.... you can bet your life someone is going to fall on a leaf for lack of "maintenance" and the state will be sued for millions. Or someone will camp on top of a bear den and get mauled and sue for lack of "security"

So...better to close them, or sell them?

I think it is horribly sad to close the parks. I would have preferred other things to be sacrificed.

closing is better... we may open them again at some point. Selling them would be crime.

 

[idb]

The problem is that this is CA and the home of the deep pocket law suit.

If a park does not have security or maintenance.... you can bet your life someone is going to fall on a leaf for lack of "maintenance" and the state will be sued for millions. Or someone will camp on top of a bear den and get mauled and sue for lack of "security"

So...better to close them, or sell them?

I think it is horribly sad to close the parks. I would have preferred other things to be sacrificed.

closing is better... we may open them again at some point. Selling them would be crime.

Agreed, but in tough times it's the luxuries that have to go first.

 

[syrenn]

Which in itself is hilarious. Rightwingers are always braying about the size of government and then when something breaks because government is shrunk they are the first to complain. There was a great example of that during the snowstorm in NYC. Right wing papers came down hard on the speed of snow removal. Why so slow? Man power at the Department of Santitation was down to historic lows. That's why. Not enough people.

There hasn't been any new major environmental regulations introduced since the Clinton era..and in fact Bush made it a point to look the other way regarding regulations. Taxes were cut to historic lows. And still..jobs were shipped out.

At what point do people simply say..

"It's because the rich are fucking greedy".

How about if you want to use the park... pay the admission? There was quite the howl about raising the admission to the users of the parks.

I have nothing against that..by the way. In NYC where I live, I think the Subways are to cheap. But there is a good argument against raising fares too..because salaries have essentially been flat for the middle class for several decades now..while the price of just about everything has been creeping up..albeit slowly. But somehow, executive compensation has climbed 300% or so..

Now why is that?

The average joe..who actually does the work gets bupkiss and the high flutin executive, who generally just takes the credit..gets all the do-ray-me?

So what? Sorry but the whole argument of .... you have more so pay up for the rest of us ..is crap.

I would have had no issue of adding on a small tax to car regenerations to pay for the parks. That way everyone in CA pays for them. I would have had no problem raising the admittance to the parks.... but they( the people) would have nothing to do with that either.

the problem with CA is that "the people" want everything for free... or on the backs of as you call them...high flutin executives.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Do you live in California?

I used to, '62 to '68, it was a very special place,

some of my best memories were camping in the state parks...

Sunday breakfast at the far western, driving by the horse farms and hunting for abalone at the beach...

Went back to visit in the early 80's

It all had been turned into a dump,

sad what happened to the place.

So i never went back, dint want to ruin the memories.

 

[mudwhistle]

So whine about govt cutting spending.

Well, there will be plenty of whining.

The problem is the left wants to intentionally cut where it will effect voters the most. They cut buy closing parks and cut back on defense. They marginalize our national defense by making it hollow. They threaten to cut Social Security checks. It's all intended to agitate people.

In TN Governor Sundquist pulled the same stunt and he earned the label "Governor Grumpy".

It will eventually end up pissing off so many people that the other party will clean up in the election. That's the way it worked here in TN.

 

[idb]

So whine about govt cutting spending.

Well, there will be plenty of whining.

The problem is the left wants to intentionally cut where it will effect voters the most. They cut buy closing parks and cut back on defense. They marginalize our national defense by making it hollow. They threaten to cut Social Security checks. It's all intended to agitate people.

In TN Governor Sundquist pulled the same stunt and he earned the label "Governor Grumpy".

It will eventually end up pissing off so many people that the other party will clean up in the election. That's the way it worked here in TN.

Sneaky bastards!

 

[Sallow]

How about if you want to use the park... pay the admission? There was quite the howl about raising the admission to the users of the parks.

I have nothing against that..by the way. In NYC where I live, I think the Subways are to cheap. But there is a good argument against raising fares too..because salaries have essentially been flat for the middle class for several decades now..while the price of just about everything has been creeping up..albeit slowly. But somehow, executive compensation has climbed 300% or so..

Now why is that?

The average joe..who actually does the work gets bupkiss and the high flutin executive, who generally just takes the credit..gets all the do-ray-me?

So what? Sorry but the whole argument of .... you have more so pay up for the rest of us ..is crap.

I would have had no issue of adding on a small tax to car regenerations to pay for the parks. That way everyone in CA pays for them. I would have had no problem raising the admittance to the parks.... but they( the people) would have nothing to do with that either.

the problem with CA is that "the people" want everything for free... or on the backs of as you call them...high flutin executives.

Naw.

The problem is the government shovels tax payer money to help these businesses in one aspect or another..and the high flutin executives think that it's a pass to get paid.
In any case..no money..no parks.

Simple as that.

 

[syrenn]

I have nothing against that..by the way. In NYC where I live, I think the Subways are to cheap. But there is a good argument against raising fares too..because salaries have essentially been flat for the middle class for several decades now..while the price of just about everything has been creeping up..albeit slowly. But somehow, executive compensation has climbed 300% or so..

Now why is that?

The average joe..who actually does the work gets bupkiss and the high flutin executive, who generally just takes the credit..gets all the do-ray-me?

So what? Sorry but the whole argument of .... you have more so pay up for the rest of us ..is crap.

I would have had no issue of adding on a small tax to car regenerations to pay for the parks. That way everyone in CA pays for them. I would have had no problem raising the admittance to the parks.... but they( the people) would have nothing to do with that either.

the problem with CA is that "the people" want everything for free... or on the backs of as you call them...high flutin executives.

Naw.

The problem is the government shovels tax payer money to help these businesses in one aspect or another..and the high flutin executives think that it's a pass to get paid.
In any case..no money..no parks.

Simple as that.

Agree... no money... no parks.

I would have preferred no money....no pork.

 

[editec]

The headline should be " Ca. gov. to eliminate security and maintenance in 70 state parks". What's going to happen? The greenies will assume that state parks will become a natural haven for wildlife while they will become a haven for criminals as the state deteriorates further and further into the 3rd world.

Look hasn't the the goal, all along? -- been to bankrupt governments to make way for the FREE MARKET CORPORATOCRACY?

Well, its working.

It hardly seems fair to complain about the fact that anarchy will break out here and there as civilization's lights are systemically turned off.

The transition from representational forms of government to the corporate Libertopian model will become a tad messy.

but this is clearly what some of us who hate government want so it is reasonable to expect that things like this are going to happen along the way.

We no longer on the road to serfdom, we're now on the road to anarchy which will, I have no doubt, ultimately lead us onto the road to totalitarianism.

Plutocracy..

Come on..at least get it right.

No totalitarism is the operative word, Sallow.

We already live in a plutocracy, what follows after a period of anarchy will be some form of totalitarianism.

Frankly, totalitarianism is the form of governance it takes to repress anarchy once it rears its ugly head.

 

[Warrior102]

Why are Republicans complaining? This is what they want for the entire country.

Can you source that, brainiac ? Or, just pulling it out of your ass ?

 

[Warrior102]

I lived in Calif. late 70's - La Mesa, to be exact. Loved it. I remember when gas hit a dollar during the gas crisis - I thought it was the end of the world. We'd drive down to TJ and get it for 60 cents a gallon.

I was just out there a couple months ago - Sacramento. Gas - waaaaaaaaaaay up, as are taxes, unemployment

The state has gone to shit.

 

[Sallow]

So what? Sorry but the whole argument of .... you have more so pay up for the rest of us ..is crap.

I would have had no issue of adding on a small tax to car regenerations to pay for the parks. That way everyone in CA pays for them. I would have had no problem raising the admittance to the parks.... but they( the people) would have nothing to do with that either.

the problem with CA is that "the people" want everything for free... or on the backs of as you call them...high flutin executives.

Naw.

The problem is the government shovels tax payer money to help these businesses in one aspect or another..and the high flutin executives think that it's a pass to get paid.
In any case..no money..no parks.

Simple as that.

Agree... no money... no parks.

I would have preferred no money....no pork.

I am sure you are fightin mad over Bachmann lobbying to get pork for her and her family's businesses.

Personally, I think that should be illegal.

Like handing out tobbacy checks on the floor of the congress. Like Boehner did..

 

[syrenn]

Naw.

The problem is the government shovels tax payer money to help these businesses in one aspect or another..and the high flutin executives think that it's a pass to get paid.
In any case..no money..no parks.

Simple as that.

Agree... no money... no parks.

I would have preferred no money....no pork.

I am sure you are fightin mad over Bachmann lobbying to get pork for her and her family's businesses.

Personally, I think that should be illegal.

Like handing out tobbacy checks on the floor of the congress. Like Boehner did..

Now don't get all pissy and partisan hacky....

i am mad about ALL pork... i don't give a shit who it is for, who it is from... or why.


The parks could have stayed open if CA pork was pared down.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://media.scpr.org/documents/2011/05/13/2011ParkClosures_attachments20110513.pdf


This is what you get when you hate government so much you would rather the wealthy get tax cuts than pay your bills

 

[syrenn]

http://media.scpr.org/documents/2011/05/13/2011ParkClosures_attachments20110513.pdf


This is what you get when you hate government so much you would rather the wealthy get tax cuts than pay your bills

WOW... right there.

Yes you are one who wants everyone else to pay YOUR bills for you. What part of YOUR bills are not YOURS??? What part of YOUR bill are someone elses to pay for?

These are state parks open to all. Everyone should pay for them.

 

[Truthmatters]

we all own these parks in cali.

They are YOUR bills if you live in cali

 

[Truthmatters]

The republican plan would be to sell them to the rich at a cut rate price for political favors